social software

04 March 2009

Facebook takes your information and hoards it. Facebook lets you connect with your friends, but not really great ways to manage them. Facebook lets you join groups and then makes it hard to ever find them. Facebook is rather annoying that way.

Facebook is a company with an energetic, driven staff that firmly believes in the company and its mission. But what if they believe they have to choose between the company and its mission.

What if a faction at Facebook sees openness as a threat to the organization?

I guarantee you, these are the conversations happening in Facebook’s Palo Alto glass block right now. How much openness is too much? How does Facebook retain its identity if they can be an non-credited information source for other applications?

I have answers to these questions and you might too. But what answers are being put forth from the Facebook corporate culture? That is what will drive its openness.

20 February 2009

After the 10 Principles of Social Media for Business came out, people began to engage us on different real-world applications. One of these was the University of Lisbon who asked for a brief thought-exercise. They wanted us to think of ways the 10 Principles would apply to education.

02 February 2009

As a kid, I remember getting my first video game system – Super Pong. Soon after that came the TRS-80 color computer. My friends had the rest: Vic-20s, Atari 2600s, Odyssey^2s, and so on.

All I wanted as a kid was to have all the games all the time. That’s it. Nothing special. Just thousands of 8 bit games.

Surely that would be heaven.

30 years later, I have them. All of them. All the Odyssey games, all the vic-20 games, all the Intelevision games, most of the Atari games. All in their original geeked out cartridge form.

I acquired these over a two year period in the 1990s, I found some mailing lists where people who were into this sort of thing had massive auctions. Most of the games were a dollar.

I understand the mind of the collector. Even if my collection was acquired rather quickly.

Many of my friends have done the estate sale route for years. Some to buy things to resell, some to collect things for themselves. They come back with stories that basically make me unwilling to even go to estate sales.

Things of massive importance to these people – but passions seldom shared. Introverted. And, in the end, wasted on estate sale reps who don’t know how to convert them into useful collections. Quite often they are converted into the filling of garbage bags and indiscriminately sent off to the dump.

I also wonder if these passions while they are unshared are sort of like dreams deferred. They cause people to become a little odd. The inability to share makes them into obsessions more than passions. You become holed-up with them.

I would like to believe that affinity groups on the Internet will mitigate this phenomenon. That people of esoteric interests will be able to befriend people of similar interests. They can be extended in a passionate, scholarly, and friendly way through community. Then, in the end, there will a community to take and extend these people’s previously personal passions.

01 February 2009

Our relationships (professional or personal) should be designed to build networks of communication, respect, responsibility and value. In organizations, those who lead are responsible for setting vision and culture. This can be a group of two, where the two people involved understand their destination and are mutually working to get there. It can work in organizations the size of Microsoft or GE – as long as appropriate leadership happens in appropriate places.

When organizations focus primarily on intangibles (profit, market dominance, public perception), focus is necessarily removed from tangibles (what we do, how we do it, why we do it). As the focus becomes diffused, the individual is lost. She no longer has responsibility or a sense of belonging.

Productivity slips. Attitude descends.

People naturally work for some goal. If the goal isn’t to innovate or help the company achieve its mission, then their goal is personal. Income maximization, maximum free time, minimum effort, maximum career path. If these goals are made outside of the mission of the company, they probably happen at the expense of the company

The fortune cookie says “You never hesitate to tackle to most difficult problems.” Why isn’t this true for everyone? Because often we are told that our input is neither sought nor appreciated.

Organizational willpower comes from clarity of purpose and buy-in from those in the organization. The members of your organization require the elements of the 10 Principles of Social Media. They need to have an understanding of operations, a good feeling about their status, clarity of corporate governance, rewards for jobs well done, and access to the information and people they need to do their jobs and improve process.

When your org allows for these, your org may earn this fortune cookie. It too will never hesitate to tackle the most difficult problems.

There's lots of unfindable information that's terribly relevant - information (or at least data) that's available only if you know precisely how to ask for it of precisely the right human being with precisely the right words and maybe the right tone of voice or the right letterhead.

If an organization can tax your patience by making it difficult for you to figure something out, it can destroy your desire for it.

Ed is right. And I’m somewhat annoyed at myself for misstating my intentions.

This would be better stated as:

10. Findability is power – Unfindable assets are waste.

The previous post showed how context and other factors change how we relate to information. But I was remiss in not making the whole point.

For business: information, people, and objects are all assets. In order for assets to be worth holding, they need to be usable in some way that creates more value than their cost of storage, management and maintenance.

Jen Zug shows us through her (very timely) tweet that we as consumers now expect findability. We expect to go to KUOW and intuitively find assets.

When the customer does not find what she wants, she gets annoyed.

Annoy me once, shame on you. Annoy me twice, I’m tweeting about it!

Ed’s comment speaks to waste from information not being immediately findable. Whether I’m looking for something at KUOW or within my own company – if I have to fight to find relevant information my patience will wear thin. My push to find the important and relevant information will end when my internal opportunity cost calculator in my brain says, “This is now too much trouble.”

On the flip side, when information is readily accessible, its value is astronomically higher. When I Google something and get the answer in less than a second, the cost of acquisition of the information is monstrously lower than its potential value when I use it for something or even if I discard it.

The required end-value of a use of data needs to be very measurable to obtain it in a person-to-person system. If I need something, it needs to be worth my time, the person I’m bothering, and the annoyance penalty for taking us both away from other things. In a computerized, rapid access world – that same information takes less than a second to obtain and inconveniences no one.

This means that casual queries based on conversations that could prove fruitful in the future are possible. Multiple avenues of inquiry can quickly be attempted, analyzed and discarded with minimal impact on corporate resources. Discovery of unexpected and highly useful information is now much more likely.

I’ll finish up by bringing up Jen Zug again … she expects the information to be findable. So should she. Now, the organization of KUOW has gained her ire. What would Jen have done if she found that content? More than likely she would have tweeted it. She would have said, “Incredible story today on KUOW about Vegemite Soup” (or something) and given a link.

23 January 2009

10. Findability is power – Unfindable information or people are irrelevant.

What is this picture? To some it may mean rescue at sea. To others it may be law enforcement coming to get them. To others it might be helicopters. Maybe piloting.

When we create information it is usually created under a given context. However, as we’ve discussed, Context is Fluid.

So an object created under a given context is not bound by that context.

Time spent searching for items we need to get our jobs done (people, expertise, information, how-to, etc.) is waste. In most businesses, a great deal of this information is tacit knowledge. To search for it, we wade through our professional networks at the office – we ask the people who sit around us who (might) be able to point us in the direction of someone else who (maybe) knows something.

This is wasted time which is often exacerbated by corporate structures, cultures, and rules which restrict access to knowledge by fiat or construct.

We can deal with this but making information more freely available. However, when business begins to open up and democratize the storage and distribution of information, the problem of searching and cataloging instantly becomes apparent.

The context under which information is created often dictates how it is stored. It’s storage then creates ease for searching under that context (e.g.: it’s filed under “Scuba Diving Disasters”) and not under other contexts (e.g.: I’m searching for “Worst underwater birthday parties ever”.).

This becomes even more complex when trying to build ad hoc teams made up of people with various reputations, skill sets, and locations.

In Social Media, tagging or folksonometric designations are given to objects of social value. A tag is a fluid designation given to an object.

Here we have a particularly sadistically delicious picture of a dessert at Jose Andres’ restaurant Zaytinya in Washington DC. When my friend Toni took this picture and put it on Flickr, she did not tag it. I added the tags, according to my context. They included Jose Andres, Food, Zaytinya, dessert and – because I wasn’t lucky enough to go myself – I added the tag “overwhelmingdesire”.

The final tag was clearly my context and not the photographers, the photographer ate the food – more than likely enjoyed it – and did not feel the overwhelming desire that I did.

While this is a rather glib example, the problem with contextual search is clear. Simply digitizing information or making it transparent does not necessarily make it findable. This principle calls on us to respect this dilemma and build systems that allow for objects to be found under a variety of contexts.

Principle #8. Immediacy in all things – Strike while the iron is hot. Eat when the food is fresh.

We’ve discussed in previous principles how information wants to be free, information should be findable and searchable and that people want to be good community members.

Have you ever been on a mission?

We consider ourselves on a mission when we have clear goals, we have an idea of how to satisfy those goals, and we are somewhat excited about achieving them. A mission differs from a task by our emotional investment.

Previous chapters have also discussed how people’s emotional investment in an activity or organization relies heavily on transparency and the availability of information.

Delays are insults to missions.

Any delay in a mission belies the importance of the mission. Delays say to the missionary: your important task is far less important to me than it is to you. This is invalidating and demotivating.

Immediacy therefore becomes crucial to maintaining motivation.

If people within an organization remain motivated, they work faster, they are more creative, and frankly, they give a damn. Demotivated team members simply do not perform as well.

When devising rules around information provision and flow in an organization, principle #8 should be kept in mind at all times. How important is this information when compared to slowing down the company? Is it more important to hide this information than to allow people the opportunity to use it for inspiration?

05 January 2009

Principle #7 - Context is Fluid – How you view an object today will be different tomorrow. Don’t destroy tomorrow’s value.

In my humble opinion, most of the business failures we’ve seen in the tech sector are due to an utter disregard for this principle.

Context is fluid. The tech you are in love with that your company is building is certainly cool. In fact, it’s cooler than you think.

The Peril of Focus

I have seen several sites, applications and ideas become stifled because they limit their own market. A singular focus to specific use cases has been lauded as good management.

The reasons for this are legendary: Focusing on specific use cases avoids scope creep. Focusing on specific use cases increases predictability and ensures a logical development cycle.

The problem here isn’t necessarily the use cases themselves, it’s the focus on a specific static context or set of contexts.

To be sure, everyone needs a plan. Your trip home needs a route. But you should have the flexibility to re-evaluate that route based on context.

If your route included what used to be this bridge, would you be taking it now?

No. Context has changed.

Your product’s context changes all the time. People find new uses for it. People eliminate old uses for it. Your intended use may bore the hell out of people, but they might find another use that works great for them and could still make you rich.

Despite this, business often limits its own products’ contexts.

How Context Works

In my 2007 post on the Seven Contexts of Human Understanding, I discuss how context radically changes based on perspective. Geographic, political, organizational, team, personal, religious, time, etc. Each perspective changes the context of what you might encounter.

And context changes based on the situation, and quickly. A baseball player at bat does very different things with 2 strikes against him than he does with none.

When we create a product – any product – and narrowly define its use, we practically limit its use. No, every product shouldn’t be able to do every thing. But when creating your design, ask yourself “Are my assumptions limiting this product’s potential?”

Social media has been great for taking an idea devised for one purpose and re-purposing it. Social media and Web 2.0 has also been great for building in repurposing. The API is now mandatory – no API and you are dead.

Why? Because everyone knows they have their own context and they don’t want to wait for you to enable it.

So, no API or a self-limiting feature set is a rocket sled ride to liquidation sale.

01 January 2009

I was much amused to find that Doug Haslam’s mention of An Bui’s remix of the 10 Principles focused specifically on this principle. He says:

Not that this was An Bui’s intent for the blog, but I have trouble imagining saying “Karma is Real” when trying to ask the Big Boss for more social media budget.

Well, it certainly was our intent and I welcome the conversation. I personally have found most upper management (Big Bosses) prefer arguments that are both in and out of the box. Concepts like this rupture the box from the inside.

Reap What You Sow

If Doug is worried about non-western religion, he can use Reap what you Sow

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.- Galatians 6:7

or perhaps B.B. King

I do everything you tell me to You won't do anything baby but try to make me blue Baby, you ought to treat me right Oh baby, you're gonna reap just what you sow -- B.B. King, Treat Me Right

or Emerson

"You cannot do a kindness too soon, for you never know how soon it will be too late." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Trust me, the invocations are inexhaustible. Karma is not a concept owned by any culture or religion.

As a word, Karma simply means “action”. As a concept, it is tied to the laws of cause and effect. If we give more, we get more. If we act well, we are treated well. If we are snarky, we get some snark back.

This concept upsets some people as being all hand-holding kumbaya-like. So, let’s examine how and why it is important for business and where it comes into play in social media.

Court of Public Opinion

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently. – Warren Buffet

What other people think matters. And it should.

The Brand

In business, people are judging your brand, your product quality, and your actions. People are taking their money, their energy, and investing it in your product. Your reputation is important.

Prior to now, business reputation could often be made through advertising and public relations slight-of-hand. But the world is becoming more and more transparent and, simultaneously, elephant-like. It sees more and forgets less.

Once trust is destroyed it is very hard to build back. No one is rushing to give Bernard Madhoff more money.

Internal to a business, Karma is a major driving force as well. For example, who is hired, promoted, and ultimately successful for your company is entirely a product of karma.

But whose Karma and what Karma?

Ideally, it would be bottom-up karma – a meritocracy of the best and brightest working their way up through the system and creating the best and healthiest company imaginable.

Why are you laughing?

You are laughing because we all know it doesn’t work this way. Promotions are all-too-often the result of backstabbing, Peter Principling, incompetence reshuffling, ulterior motivating, politicking, etc. Sometimes it’s due to corporate or union momentum – that inexorable force that promotes people simply due to longevity.

You are laughing because it’s inconceivable that we could create a business that would be healthy enough to actually reward and promote appropriately.

(This is why Buckingham’s first book is called First Break All The Rules. The current rule set doesn’t allow for bottom-up Karma).

Top-Down Karma

An organization most often derives its culture from management. As we discussed with the mythical company Amalgamated Suckup (Jim’s version, An’s version), as companies become less introspective, they rely more on policy to govern the business.

Policies become a crutch.

Policies generally require stuff and most often that stuff comes in the form of information rigidity. The right form at the right time – no exceptions.

As the form trumps function, people lose enthusiasm and stop working for the success of the company and more for the success of the policies. “How the game is played".

Karma being satisfied here is not from the bottom – or from the individual. The karma being satisfied here is from the institution.

Now, follow the dots.

If a bottom-up meritocratic approach gives you the best and the brightest – what does a top-down bureaucratic approach give you? It gives you people skilled at satisfying your bureaucracy and navigating your politics.

Now, unless my history is inaccurate, DaVinci didn’t have a Powerbook. (though he probably sketched one)

Karma is certainly not an invention of social media. But social media highlights how people react when healthy social reinforcement is in place.

Karma in social media is everywhere. Whether explicitly stated, as in this screenshot from Plurk, or more implicit, understanding the notion of Karma is what makes a good social network.

First we have the notion of a “friend”. The liberal definition of Friend in social media upsets a lot of people. (Some people like to be outraged, it makes them feel important).

But, as used in social media, friends are people you have contact with. The term friend is … friendly. Networks form.

People in these networks do things.

To the left here we have my Yelp statistics. I’ve given this company 140 reviews, gone to a bunch of their events, and I’ve amassed about 100 friends.

Why? Why would I spend my time adding to the intellectual property of this company?

The reason is entirely Karma based.

I gave them 140 reviews, these reviews were good enough to get them to make me an “elite” member. This means I rose through the meritocracy to get special perks. (Hosted dinners, etc.)

You will also see that people vote on each review. It can be useful, funny and / or cool. This is done by readers. Any reader.

Compliments are from fellow Yelpers who can leave a compliment under any of 9 categories.

Good behavior on Yelp can be noted by anyone at any time and in many different ways.

Social media has shown us repeatedly that sites that provide ample rewards for good behavior see more good behavior. Those that penalize bad behavior see people leave and go to other sites.

What Goes Around Comes Around

The principle here is a principle: Karma is real. As businesses plan projects, cultural changes, and their relationships internal & external, the fact that in a networked world people can quickly judge and mete rewards or punishments must be a guiding force.

The community will judge your company based on your actions. It’s that simple and it’s that complicated.

Or Perhaps Bob Dylan says it better:

You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride, You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side, You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair, You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir

But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You're gonna have to serve somebody, Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you're gonna have to serve somebody.

27 December 2008

My friend Jay Fienberg left a comment at the end of my Intellectual In-Breeding post that raised this point:

I think this is an interesting idea, but either overstated or in need of more exploration:

"Information is, by its very nature, subversive. Information tells you the right thing to do."

I think one could just as easily assert that "information is, by its very nature, oppressive. Information tells you the wrong thing to do."

As a conjecture: when has anyone every done the wrong thing without doing so based on some information? – Jay Fienberg (Jay’s Site)

I read this in the car, parked outside Top Pot Doughnuts in Seattle and laughed. It’s an awesome observation.

Cuts Like a Knife

I would argue that information in this context is an object. A social object. Subversive, Oppressive, Liberating, Enlightening.

And like a knife, it can slice a tomato or your throat.

When organizations lose shared purpose and principles – their sense of community – they are already in process of decay and dissolution, even though they may linger with outward appearance of success for some time. -- Dee Hock, Founder of Visa in Birth of the Chaordic Age

The game of a new organization is to be noticed. To be noticed, you want to be the best. Quality is job 1. This is an expansive mode.

The game of an old organization is to continue to exist. This is a protective or entropic mode – the focus is now inward.

What Mr. Hock is noting in this quote is that when an organization switches from an expansive mode, it enters an entropic mode. Maybe this is inevitable – that’s for further debate.

When you combine these two observations, the questions become: How do organizations in an entropic state abuse information? And, perhaps, is information abuse itself a signal that an organization has entered an entropic state? Can we use it as a diagnostic tool?

The entropic organization is readily recognizable by the dysfunction in how it exchanges information. So, the last question, I’d give a yes. The middle question I would give a probably – it’s certainly an indicator that you need to do an entropy check.

The first question would take volumes. Rules, policies, even outright fabrication in some cases. Worldcom, Morgan Stanley, and the Bush White House can all provide ample examples of half-truths and lies being released in the form of information and information that has bowed to the whims of control.

But It Feels so Right

Why do organizations do this? What is it about entropy that causes this type of bending of information? Why do people feel that obfuscation and withholding information is useful?

We return to Dee’s Quote. “When organizations lose shared purpose and principles – their sense of community – they are already in process of decay…”.

Decay is pervasive.

Systemic.

Now the darkness only stays the night-time In the morning it will fade away Daylight is good at arriving at the right time Its not always going to be this grey All things must pass All things must pass away -- George Harrison, All Things Must Pass

Decay and rebirth are life itself. Why are our institutions expected to be immutable?

Change requires acceptance. People leading large companies are already scared of tomorrow. Every day they fear someone will build something better, do something smarter, create something less expensive.

Keeping information hidden until the last possible minute is a natural reaction by people in power. Power corrupts – but corrupt people are not evil. They have been corrupted, often unbeknownst to themselves. Retrospection is our teacher in this regard.

Feeling that they are protecting the company, they will hoard information. There has been no handbook to tell them otherwise.

No, it means that systems need rejuvenation and management. Entropy should be anticipated and accounted for.

IBM has done an excellent job of reinventing itself. Many governments have sunset dates for their ministries. And (thank you FDR) we have term limits on the US presidency. With every new presidency, with every new reinvention of self, introspection and forward vision both happen. Rebirth ensues.

Agile Methods and Lean Principles both dictate frequent reviews and check-ins. Information is designed to flow as freely as possible and create systems to quickly note when it is not.

Human nature works for us and against us in this regard. We naturally protect ourselves when under pressure – but we also naturally cooperate when goals are clear and shared.

Leadership becomes critical in open structures. It’s not anarchy and it’s not communism. Open structures require strong leadership. Someone needs to be on-point to make sure all the members of an organization are comfortable.

This requires true leadership, not autocratic positional power.

Way beyond the shadow of a doubt

Society abhors an information vacuum.

The future requires an introspective organization. One that won’t stand for misinformation or information being withheld.